Those ‘ traditional Washington Politics ‘ that Andrew mentioned in yesterday’s post refer to the way that in the US and UK, well organized and well funded corporate bodies can exert a great deal of influence on the government.
Companies can directly donate to a candidate and expect some sort of quid pro quo , or the influence can be less direct: Karthik Ramanna from Harvard Business School and Sugata Roychowdhury of MIT recently wrote a white paper that suggests that in the 2004 election, outsourcing firms located in political battlegrounds were underreporting their profits to deflect attention from their (likely profitable) outsourcing, so that candidates wouldn’t have to confront the issue.
 To get away from these sorts of direct and indirect influence, political and administrative boundaries need to be redesigned. Greater transparency of the interrelationship between politicians, advisors, civil servants, [...]

By promoting an agenda that put the United States above international law, and by ignoring international agreements (like the Kyoto Treaty), George W. Bush has done little to enamor himself with countries around the world. This is part of the reason that Barack Obama is so hugely popular outside the US-his message of change seems to really strike a chord in the US domestically as well as internationally.
But it’s interesting to note how now that he’s the democratic candidate, he’s moved back towards the center the way American candidates often do to appeal to the greatest percentage of the electorate. One example: in the past Obama made a large issue of campaign finance reform and limiting the amount of public funding a candidate can use-however there isn’t a limit if you only use private funding and Obama has decided to go that way. His supporters say [...]